This empirical study explores the effectiveness of humorous advertising viewed in 92 countries from a typology of nine humor types. The humor typology was derived inductively from humor theories and comic techniques adopted in the literature. From a large sample of commercials screened for humorous content and high performance metrics, an examination of incongruity, mockery and arousal mechanisms led to nine humor types subsequently evaluated for cross-cultural advertising appeal using Hofstede’s (2001) measures for power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Overall, the study found that humor based on absurdity and surprise scored well on attention and likeability in almost all cultures. Cultures of high femininity and collectivism were the least impacted by humor. Aggressive humor such as put-downs and malicious joy scored far worse in nations of high power distance and collectivism. Finally, socially inappropriate humor such as unruliness performed better in cultures marked by high individualism and masculinity.

1. A Cross-Cultural Typology
of Advertising Humor
2013 Cross Cultural Research Conference
Antigua, Guatemala 12/08/13
JAMES M. BARRY
SANDRA S. GRAÇA

2. Contribution
• This research provides marketers with meaningful frameworks for crafting
humor-based content strategies in a global setting
• High growth in edu-taining social videos*
• Humor continues as most popular form of entertainment in commercials
• But meaningful humor typologies are lacking
• This research is based on large scale, TV commercial evaluations using social engagement data
• This research provides a manageable set of humor classifications that are
well aligned with theory
• Typology further reveals some anticipated cultural reactions to aggressive
humor types considered in the derived typology
* 87% of marketers use video for content marketing; $6.3B to be spent on video ads in 2015

3. Objectives
• Inductively derive a humor typology from:
• Large scale sampling viral YouTube videos recast from
commercials
• High level sort of comic devices into theory-based classifications
• Model synthesis to fit multi-theory taxonomies and researched
comic devices
• Examine effectiveness of humor types for a final typology
selection and framework for cultural analysis
• Examine empirical results relative to literature findings
• Qualify humor performance from viral video statistics
• Compare performance of each type across national cultures

4. Importance of Humor
• Humor in advertising dominates
entertainment in spot TV and online
commercials
• Accelerated growth in viral video
marketing
• Almost every major brand uses YouTube as a
back channel for recast TV commercials
• > 6B hours of video are watched each month
on YouTube
• 95% of viral videos are entertaining, two-thirds
of which are intended to be funny
• Nearly $50 billion is spent annually on
worldwide humorous commercials
Viral YouTube Videos (> 50K Views)
Recast from TV Commercials
Non-Humorous
Entertainment

5. 3 Theories of Humor
• Cognitive (Ah-Hah!)
• Emotional (Ha! Ha!)
• Physiological (Ahh!)
Incongruity-Resolution
Superiority
Relief-Release

6. Incongruity-Resolution Theory of Humor
Cognitive Stimulus
Incongruity
• Humor is perceived at the moment of
realization of incongruity between:
• What we expect
• And what actually happens
• Main point of the theory
• Is not the incongruity
• It’s the resolution (i.e., putting the objects in
question into the real relation)
Resolution

7. Superiority Theory of Humor (Disparagement)
Social Stimulus
• Laughter is a "sudden glory” we feel when
witnessing the misfortunes of others
(schadenfreude)
• Misfortunes assert the person's superiority on
the background of another’s shortcomings
• Seen as aggressive and disparaging, reactions
to this humor are mixed

8. Tension-Relief (Arousal-Safety) Theory of Humor
Affective Stimulus
• Laughter results when psychological
tension is reduced
• Homeostatic (arousal-safety) mechanism
from release of nervous energy or
hysteria
• Overcoming sociocultural inhibitions
• Revealing suppressed desires
• Barely escaping danger

9. Literature Review
• Speck’s (1991) humorous message taxonomy defines 5 humor types
• Framework demonstrates multi-theory interactions, but lacks specificity & an
adequate framework for cultural sensitivity examination
• Berger (1993) and Buijzen & Valkenburg (2004) identified 200+ comic devices
• Lee and Lim (2008) and Hatzithomas et al. (2011) examine cultural influences
Speck (1991)

10. Complex Nature of Humor Complicates Typology
• Humor is derived from complex
cognitive and psychological conditions
• Studies still lack a foundation in which
to appropriately categorize humor in
line with well accepted theories
• Broad theories at one end
• Too many humor categories of mixed
concepts at other end (e.g., mixes of
comic devices or skit manipulations)

11. Synthesis of Comic Devices & Theory
Theory
IncongruityResolution
Speck’s Taxonomy
Comic Wit
Resonant
Wit
Superiority
Satire
ArousalSafety
(Relief)
Resonant
Comedy
Full
Comedy
Comic Devices
Puns
Hyperbole
Parodies
Stereotyping
Sarcasm
Mockery
Slapstick
etc.
Incongruity Mechanisms
Conceptual
Discord
Aberrant
Behaviors
Visual
Anomalies

12. Methodology
• Examined re-casted spot television ads posted on YouTube
• 2107 commercials (> 50K views, past decade) were
classified as having content intended to be humorous
• Views measured for attention
• Net likes and comments captured for engagement
• Up to three comic devices per episode
• Commercials were then defined and sorted into categories
of comic devices that dominated the commercial
• 1st level consolidation of comic devices was based on face
value discovery of in-group conceptual similarity and
distinctiveness across groups
Example Comic Device:
Babies Performing as Adults

13. Methodology
Full Comedy: Social Order Deviancy
• Incongruity Theory: Royal family out of sorts
• Superiority Theory: Society satire
• Relief Theory: Letting loose of parliamentary process

14. Mockery Mechanisms
Incongruity Mechanisms
•
•
•
•
•
PD: Perceptual Displacement
IJ: Ironic Juxtaposition
P: Puns
H: Hyperbole
ST: Surprise Twist
Response to Cognitive Shift
Conceptual Discord
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aberrant Behaviors
•
•
•
•
•
PD: Maladroitness (C)*,#
PD: Irreverence (D)*,#
PD: Eccentricity (A, C, D)*,#
IJ: Ironic Behaviors (A, C)*,#
H: Over-reactive Behaviors (A, C, D)
Visual Anomalies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
PD: Nonsense (A)*, #
PD: Strange Settings (A)
PD: Ignorance (C)*,#
IJ: Misunderstandings (A)*,#
IJ: Situational Irony/Coincidence (A, C)*,#
IJ: Untimely Quandaries/Mishaps (C, E)
IJ: Illusory Superiority (C)
P: Puns (A)*,#
H: Exaggerated Outcomes (A)*,#
H: Understatements (A)
ST: Conceptual Surprises (A, C, D)*
ST: Reversals (A, C, D)
PD: Scale Distortion (A, C)*,#
PD: Grotesque Appearance (A, C)*,#
PD: Mimicry/Impersonation (A, C)*,#
IJ: Visual Surprise (A)*,#
IJ: Visual Irony (A)*,#
IJ: Dramatic Irony (C)*,#
H: Exaggerated Qualities (A)*,#
H: Speed Distortion (A)*,#
ST: Transformation (A)*,#
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Misfortune (C)
Sarcasm & Insults (C)*,#
Stereotyping (C)
Parodies (C)*
Background Mockery (C)
Outwitting (C)*
Delusions of Grandeur (C)
Humbled Haughtiness (C)
Highlighted Inferiorities (C)
Humor Types (Speck, 1991)
A.
B.
C.
D.
C
Feelings of Sudden Glory
•
•
•
•
•
Comic Wit (Incongruence)
Sentimental Humor (Arousal-Safety)
Satire (Incongruence + Disparagement )
Sentimental Comedy (Incongruence + ArousalSafety)
E. Full Comedy (Incongruence, Disparagement +
Arousal-Safety)
Malicious Joy (C)*
Mocked Peculiarities (C)
Lofty Conquests (C)
Society Satire (C, E)*,#
Awkward Moments (E)*,#
Social Order Deviancy
D
Repressed Energy Release
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impulsive Outbursts (D, E)
Exercising Improprieties (D, E)
Displaced Embarrassment (D, E)*,#
Strange Sentimental Response (D)
Displaced Irritation (D)
Suspenseful Relief (D)
Arousal Mechanisms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shameful Discoveries
Melodrama
Taboos
Narrow Escape
Suspense
Dream Exploits
Disappointment
Sexual Allusions*,#
Infantilism*,#
Aggression
Antagonism
Anxiety
•
•
•
•
E
Outwitted Censorship
Unprepared Remorseful Predicament
Slapstick Comedy*,#
Unleashed Insanity
B
* Humor technique adopted from Buijzen and
Valkenburg (2004)
# Humor technique adopted from Berger (1993)
Ad
Performance
• Attention
• Likeability
• Engagement

15. Synthesis of Theory, Speck’s Taxonomy,
Comic Device Literature & Test Results
Speck Humor Types
Incongruency
Disparagement
Arousal-Safety
Full Comedy
Satire
Sentimental
Comedy
Comic Wit *
High
High
High
High
High
Low
High
Low
High
Unruliness
High
Low
Low
Absurdity 1)
Sentimental Humor
Low
Low
High
Sentimental Humor
Conceptual Discord
Perceptual
Nonsense & Strange
Dispacement
Settings
Misunderstandings &
Ironic Juxtaposition
Situational Irony
Puns
Puns
Exaggerated Outcomes &
Hyperbole
Understatements
Surprise Twist
Conceptual Surprise
* Incongruity Mechanisms
Aberrant Behaviors
Humor Type 1
Social Order Deviancy Awkwardness
Putdowns
Malicious Joy
NA
Visual Anomalies
Distortions &
Impersonations
Visual Surprise & Visual
Irony
NA
Small Volume
Over-reactive Behaviors
Exaggerated Qualities
1) Absurdity
NA
Transformation
3) Surprise
Eccentricity
Ironic Behaviors
Humor Type 2 Humor Type 3
1) Absurdity
2) Irony
Irony 2)
Surprise 3)

16. Typology of 9 Humor Types
1. Absurdity
2. Irony
3. Surprise
4. Malicious Joy
5. Putdowns
6. Unruliness
7. Social Order Deviancy
8. Awkwardness
9. Sentimental Humor

17. Inductive Support of Incongruity Theory
Theory of Incongruity
EXAGGERATION
CONCEPTUAL DISCORD
PERCEPTIONAL DISCORD
Odd Behaviors
IRONY
Visual Irony
SURPRISE TWIST
Conceptual Surprises
Exaggerated Outcomes
17
Performing/ Talking Babies
33 Cyborgs Acting as Humans
53 Wrong Answer
1 Exaggerated Results
2 Exaggerated Response
18
34 Humans Acting as Animals
35 Hypocritical Behaviors
54 Uneventful Conclusion
55 Absurd Chain Reaction
3 Exaggerated Nightmare Reactions
20
Animal Willpower
Multiple Personalities
Foolishness
4 Exaggerated Stories
Understatement
19
Misrepresented Context
21
5 Unrattled by Danger
6 Exaggerated Simplicity
22
7 Exaggerated Concealment
24
8 Profound Grasp of the Obvious
VISUAL ANOMALIES
Exaggerated Qualities
9 Exaggerated Body Reactions
10 Supernatural Performance
11 Incredible Allure
12 Speed & Scale Distortion
ABERRANT BEHAVIORS
Overreactions
13 Taking Extreme Measures
23
Illustrated Idioms
Humanized Depiction
Unusual Setting
Unconventional Routine
Bizarre Substitutions
25
26
27
28
Object Replacement
Sound Imitations
Animal Substitution
Anthropomorphism
Nonsense
29
30
31
Dim-witted
Baffling Dialog
Irrelevance
32
Confusing Response
36 Oxymorons
37 Unusual Pairing
Ironic Temperament
38 Callous Turned Kind
39 Miscast Temperament
Plot Trickery
56 Storyline Twist
57 Fantasy Turned Reality
58 Twist of Fate
Transformation
40 Soft Tough Guy
59 Age Transformation
41 Unlikely Friendliness
42 Unusually Considerate
60 Magic
61 Body Switch
Ironic Persona
43 Adult Acting Child
44 Childish Adult
45 Miscast Role
46 Mistaken Identity
47 Unlikely Hero
Situational Irony
48 Anachronisms
14 Awestruck
49 Coincidental Backlash
15 Over Intense
16 Over Heroic
50 Miscommunications
51 Misplaced Routine
52 Misunderstood Intentions
Visual Surprise
62 Surprise Revelation
63 Creature Appearance
64 Wishful Thinking

18. Inductive Support of Superiority Theory
PUTDOWNS
Mocked Peculiarities
65
66
67
68
Background Mockery
Illusory Superiority
Maladroitness
Quirkiness
Lofty Conquest
69
70
71
72
Outwitting
Macho Gone Sour
Arrogant Knockdowns
Unfair Advantage
Society Satire
73
74
75
76
Exaggerated Cultural Nuance
Parodies
Language Peculiarities
Cheeky Barbs
Stereotyping
77
78
79
80
Blondes & Bubbas
Sterotyped Professions
Celebrity Impersonation
Beauty Conquered Male
MALICIOUS JOY
Bungling Behaviors
81
82
83
84
Accident Prone
Futile Attempts
Innocently Offensive
Toxic Stupor
Unanticipated Spoiler
85
86
87
88
Unexpected Danger
Unexpected Injury
Unexpected Damage
Spoiled Romance
Unfortunate Happenstance
89
90
91
92
Bad Timing
Bad Idea
Lost Opportunity
Unforeseen Consequences
Deserved Repercussions
93
94
95
96
Paybacks
Backfires
Hangovers
Overextended
Cretins
97
98
99
100
Cavemen
Grotesque & Deformed
Derelicts
Gross Incompetence
AWKWARDNESS
Remorseful Regrets
101
102
103
104
Tough Predicaments
Regretful Actions
Regretful Statements
Caught Off Guard
Uncomfortable Settings
105
106
107
108
Uncomfortable Male Bonding
Uncomfortable Intimacy
Uncomfortable Conversation
Creepiness
Exercising Humility
109
110
111
112
Wrong Impression
Exposed Privacy
Public Embarassment
Unveiled Feminine Side
Revealed Secrets
113
114
115
116
Captured Glances
Revealed Deceptions
Exposed True Colors
Revealed Fantasies

19. Inductive Support of Relief/Release Theory
UNRULINESS
Hysteria
117
118
119
120
Angry Yelling
Nervous Breakdown
Sports Fanatical
Extreme Screaming
Impulsive Outbursts
121
122
123
124
Belligerance
Forceful Demonstration
Spontaneous Performance
Body Explosion
Displaced Irritation
125
126
127
128
Annoying Natures
Incessant Talker
Ending the Annoyance
Annoying Repetitions
Exercising Improprieties
129
130
131
132
Invasive Peeking
Disorderly Pop Culture Lexicons
Recalcitrance
Unsightly Exposure
SOCIAL ORDER DEVIANCY SENTIMENTAL HUMOR
Society Irreverence
133
134
135
136
High Society Satires
Outwitting the Honorable
Rule Breaking
Undermining Authority
Forbidden Behaviors
137
138
139
140
Taboos & Sacred Barriers
Exercising Professional
Exhibitionism
Face Slapping
Offensive Behaviors
141
142
143
144
Odor Offensive
Repulsive Behaviors
Unrefined Behaviors
Bleeped Language
Unleashed Mania
145
146
147
148
Mad Science
Sadomasochism
Public Disturbance
Swooning Women
Child Innocence
149 Youthful Discoveries
150 Inner Child
151 Child Mimicry of
Fear & Anxiety Relief
152 Narrow Escape
153 Fear of What's to
154 Barely Escaped
Melodrama
155 Histrionic Behaviors
156 Melancholic Behaviors
157 Fervent Behaviors
Inner Secrets
158 Dream Exploits
159 Suggestive Sexual
160 Contradicting Inner

20. 86
51
70
60
94
76
85
48
54
86
30
80
54
86
80
74
23
67
80
94
60
55
59
86
65
65
112
101
54
29
82
50
40
48
59
85
35
81
75
13
92
68
52
80
60
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
L
H
M
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
M
L
M
M
H
L
H
H
L
H
H
M
H
H
H,M,L*
M
H
H
M
M
M
L
M
M
L
H
H
M
L
L
M
L
H
M
L
L
H
L
M
H
L
M
L
M
M
H
L
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
M
L
L
UAI Score
56
61
79
55
54
49
40
52
46
28
66
64
46
21
40
57
16
63
45
40
30
65
26
43
66
40
57
37
46
57
88
10
56
46
43
70
68
47
70
68
95
52
41
40
30
H,M,L*
M
H
M
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
H
L
L
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
M
L
M
L
H
M
H
L
M
L
L
L
H
MASC Score
46
90
55
20
75
38
30
80
20
23
20
13
20
15
33
58
74
8
25
19
60
20
63
71
67
15
35
6
20
25
80
60
48
14
41
30
70
54
76
39
46
38
27
25
60
H,M,L*
M
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
L
H
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
H
L
L
M
M
M
H
H
H
L
INDV Score
H,M,L*
49
36
11
80
65
69
70
39
77
63
80
67
77
35
73
57
18
78
70
66
40
70
33
68
35
80
60
95
77
68
46
30
77
78
58
95
28
13
50
45
54
80
64
90
40
H,M,L*
UAI Score
• In order to show substantial differences across cultural
dimensions, scores between 40 and 60 were removed as
being moderate
H,M,L*
• Country scoring was not available for approx. 20% of the sample
MASC Score
• Some based on subsequent studies from other researchers
H,M,L*
• Some based on Hofstede’s original research
INDV Score
• 92 countries were scored according to Hofstede’s
measurements
H,M,L*
• To qualify each commercial by national culture, viewers
from over 100 nations were recorded from YouTube stats
PDI Score
Categorizing Across Cultures
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guyana
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Latvia
PDI Score
Country
75
40
40
104
81
70
63
38
22
80
31
55
95
64
94
68
63
62
80
90
93
95
86
74
104
71
49
60
57
68
31
34
58
64
47
66
90
77
35
96
61
40
81
70
80
60
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
L
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
M
H
L
L
M
H
M
H
H
H
L
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
40
60
60
26
30
25
30
80
79
30
69
14
11
16
32
60
27
84
38
30
39
25
25
20
52
27
65
18
51
50
71
68
17
20
16
37
25
20
89
38
36
91
12
20
38
35
M
H
H
L
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
H
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
H
L
M
M
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
65
30
50
50
69
53
40
14
58
60
8
50
44
42
64
64
31
60
52
42
36
60
43
48
110
19
63
39
42
40
5
70
45
34
58
45
50
46
66
40
38
62
73
40
52
40
H
L
M
M
H
M
L
L
M
H
L
M
M
M
H
H
L
H
M
M
L
H
M
M
H
L
H
L
M
L
L
H
M
L
M
M
M
M
H
L
L
H
H
L
M
L
50
60
70
36
82
68
40
53
49
55
50
70
86
87
44
93
104
61
68
90
95
80
92
8
51
88
49
85
86
45
29
58
69
64
55
85
80
54
35
93
100
46
76
30
68
50
M
H
H
L
H
H
L
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
M
H
M
H
H
M
L
M
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
H
L
H
M
Country
* H- High Score; M - Moderate Score; L - Low Score
Lebanon
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mexico
Morocco
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad
Turkey
UAE
Uganda
UK
Ukraine
Uruguay
US
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zaire/Zambia

21. • Aggressive humor (e.g., unruliness, putdowns
and malicious joy) scored higher in
engagement among highly individualistic
cultures
• Collectivist cultures may see aggressive humor
as offensive, socially inappropriate or running
counter to relational harmony
Putdowns
+80%
Engagement*
High
INDV
Circle size
denotes
number of
commercials.
+40%
Surprise
-150%
-100%
Absurdity
Sentimental
Humor
Irony
-50%
+50%
Non-Humor
Malicious Joy
Awkwardness
+150
% Attention*
Humor (68%)
Non-Humor (32%)
-80%
n = 2501 commercials
Low
INDV
+100%
Social Order Unruliness
-40% Deviancy
Engagement
*
• Only half of the entertaining commercials
viewed in collectivist cultures were considered
humorous
Engagement
*
Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along
Individualistic Dimensions
Circle size
denotes
number of
commercials.
+80%
+40%
Sentimental
Humor
-150%
-100%
-50%
Irony
Putdowns
Unruliness
n = 635 commercials
NonHumor
Malicious Joy
Awkwardnes
s
+50%
+100%
Surprise
-40%
Absurdity
-80%
+150
% Attention*
Social Order
Deviancy
Humor (49%)
Non-Humor (51%)

22. • As expected, viewers from countries of high
uncertainty avoidance essentially dismiss humor
based on absurdities
Low
UAI
• LOW UAI: 15% above average on engagement and
70% above average on attention
• Consistent with the literature, this could reflect
their inherent aversion to ambiguity (Hatzithomas
et al. 2011; Lee and Lim, 2008)
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
+80%
+40%
Irony
Surprise
Non-Humor
-150%
• HIGH UAI: 30% below average on engagement and
20% below average on attention
Engagement*
Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along
Uncertainty Avoidance Dimensions
-100%
-50%
Putdowns
+50%
+100%
-40%
Sentimental
Humor
n = 469 commercials
-80%
High
UAI
Malicious
Joy
Unruliness
Social Order
Deviancy
Humor (60%)
Non-Humor (40%)
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
+80%
Social
Order
Deviancy
+40%
Awkwardness
Sentimental
Humor
-100%
+150%
Attention*
Awkwardness
-150%
Absurdity
Surprise
-50%
+50%
+100%
+150%
Putdowns
Attention*
Irony
Unruliness
Absurdity
Non- -40%
Humor
Malicious
Joy
n = 804 commercials
Humor (54%)
-80%
Non-Humor (46%)

23. • Higher engagement scores on putdowns, and
• Higher attention scores on unruliness as compared to
their feministic counterparts
• This is consistent with the more aggressive and
competitive nature of masculine societies.
• Samples from feministic cultures also showed
more preference to non-humorous forms of
entertainment.
High
MASC
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
+80%
+40%
Surprise
Putdowns
Sentimental
Humor
Absurdity
Irony
-150%
-100%
-50%
NonHumor
+100%
+50%
-40%
Awkwardness
n = 1834 commercials
Humor (66%)
-80%
Low
MASC
Unruliness
-150%
Social Order Deviancy
Awkwardness
Non-Humor
+50%
Putdowns
Absurdity
n = 392 commercials
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
Irony
-50%
-100%
Non-Humor (34%)
+80%
+40%
Malicious Joy
+150%
Unruliness
Malicious Joy
Social Order Deviancy
Engagement*
• In the case of masculinity, samples from highly
masculine cultures showed:
Engagement*
Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along
Masculinity Dimensions
+100%
+150%
Surprise
Sentimental Humor
-40%
Attention*
Humor (49%)
-80%
Non-Humor (51%)

24. Evaluation of Humor Effectiveness Along Power
Distance Dimensions
• This would suggest that individuals from these
nations are sensitive to their class structure
and, consequently, feel uncomfortable
exploiting someone’s stature.
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
+80%
+40%
Sentimental
Humor
-150%
-100%
-50%
Malicious Joy
Non-Humor
Unruliness
+50%
Irony
Awkwardness
Surprise
+100%
Social Order
Deviancy
Absurdity
Putdowns
+150%
Attention*
-40%
Humor (52%)
-80%
n = 774 commercials
Engagement*
• Contrary to Lee and Lim (2008), viewers from
cultures of high power distance show far less
engagement and viewing of commercials
featuring disparagement (e.g., putdowns)
High
PDI
Low
PDI
Surprise
Non-Humor (48%)
Circle size
denotes number
of commercials.
+80%
+40%
Absurdity
Putdowns
-150%
-100%
-50%
Irony
NonHumor
Social Order
Deviancy
Sentimental
Humor
+50%
Malicious
Joy
+100%
+150%
Attention*
Unruliness
-40%
Awkwardness
n = 2335 commercials
Humor (69%)
-80%
Non-Humor (31%)

25. Conclusion
• This research found 9 humor types to represent the vast majority
of high performing commercials when measured by total views and
social media engagement.
• The sample was large enough to further explore the cross-cultural
distinctions inferred in the literature.
• Among the humor types that consistently score above average
across most cultures are those based on the incongruity theory
(e.g., absurdity, irony and surprise).

26. Conclusion
• Many of the cultural distinctions fall along the lines of negative or
aggressive humor
• This implies that advertisers should be sensitive to a culture’s
receptivity to humor that is deemed disparaging or socially
inappropriate.

27. Limitations
• Single author evaluation of humor devices
• Study is exploratory
• Requires several controls on advertising effectiveness (e.g., controls for cultural
actors, skit manipulations, brand preference, demographic appeal, etc.)
• Lacks analysis of multi-theory influences (combined influence of incongruity,
superiority and relief effects)
• YouTube statistics do not isolate video performance by country
(i.e., uses top 3 country stats for total view and likeability count)

28. Thank You

29. References
Berger, Arthur Asa (1993). An Anatomy of Humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Buijzen , M. & Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media
Psychology, 6, 147-167.
Hatzithomas, L., Zotos, Y., Boutsouki, C. (2011). Humor and cultural values in print advertising: a cross
cultural study. International Marketing Review, 28(1), 57-80.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations
across nations. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lee, Y.H. & Lim, E.A.C. (2008). What’s funny and what’s not: the moderating role of cultural orientation in
ad humor. Journal of Advertising. 37(2), 71-84.
Speck, P.S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. In Journal
of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 13, James Leigh & Claude Martin, Jr EDS. University of
Michigan, 1-44.